Martin v. D.C. Metropolitan Police Department
Cases that cite this one
35 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Leonard Rollon Crawford-El v. Patricia Britton and the District of Columbia (D.C. Cir. 1996)
- Brett C. Kimberlin v. Michael J. Quinlan (D.C. Cir. 1993)
- McLin v. Trimble (Okla. 1990)
- Barbara Conner v. Rudy G. Reinhard (7th Cir. 1988)
- Easter House, an Illinois, Not-For-Profit Corporation v. Thomas Felder, Florence McGuire and Joan Satoloe (7th Cir. 1988)
- Carroll v. Tennessee Valley Authority (District Court, District of Columbia 1988)
- Josiah Haynesworth and Fred Hancock v. Frank P. Miller, Chief, Law Enforcement Section, Office of the Corporation Counsel, (Two Cases) (D.C. Cir. 1987)
- Moore v. United States (District Court, District of Columbia 2015)
- Judicial Watch of Florida, Inc. v. United States Department of Justice (District Court, District of Columbia 2000)
- Africa v. City of Philadelphia (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1992)
- Thanh Vong Hoai v. Thanh Van Vo (D.C. Cir. 1991)
- Kimberlin v. Quinlan (District Court, District of Columbia 1991)
- United States v. David James Baker (10th Cir. 1990)
- United States v. Rene Corral-Corral (10th Cir. 1990)
- Auriemma v. Rice (7th Cir. 1990)
- Richardson v. U.S. Department of Interior (District Court, District of Columbia 1990)
- Gaubert v. Gray (District Court, District of Columbia 1990)
- Collinson v. Gott (4th Cir. 1990)
- Auriemma v. Rice (7th Cir. 1990)
- Gregory v. Chehi (3d Cir. 1988)
- Medicare&medicaid Gu 37,414 Pueblo Neighborhood Health Centers, Inc., and Oliver P. Pacheco v. Joseph E. Losavio, Jr. (10th Cir. 1988)
- Turner v. Dammon (4th Cir. 1988)
- No. 87-2167 (10th Cir. 1988)
- Tribble v. Gardner (9th Cir. 1988)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Appellants’ suggestion for rehearing en banc has been circulated to the full Court. The taking of a vote was requested. Thereafter, a majority of the judges of the Court in regular, active service voted in favor of the suggestion. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, by the Court en banc, that appellants’ suggestion for rehearing en banc is granted and these cases will be reheard by the Court sitting en banc on the issue presented by appellants in their suggestion. It is
FURTHER ORDERED, by the Court en banc, that Section IV of the opinion of February 10, 1987 and the dissenting opinion, be, and the same hereby are, vacated. Except for Sections I, II and III of the majority opinion, all opinions are hereby withdrawn from all future publication.
A future order will govern further proceedings herein.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.